Violence against women in the series. Thoughts (Show spoilers) MOD NOTE post #1

Sleepy

I really don't think it's done for "shock value", it's done to paint the world as it has been imagined by the author: one that's violent.

dark crystal

drumswan wrote: »

Um, they dont show actual rape either, you know its acting right?

What has that comment got to do with the point that poster was making?
I think it's safe to say we all know it's makey-uppy tv, not real life, so there's really no need to talk down to people with silly comments like that.

Fancy addressing the actual points the poster made?

Naydy

DM addict wrote: »

You're right, you can. You can always imply abuse/violence without showing it graphically.

But that's not what this show does, by and large. You're right, we didn't see Craster raping his wife/daughters - but it would have been weird if he was entertaining the Night's Watch while raping someone. It just wouldn't fit.

We didn't see Theon's castration in detail because there are many things that are just too ick to show. I doubt we'll see any female castration/FGM in detail either - some stuff you just can't get past the censors, even if you want to.

BUT I actually think the scene at Craster's last night does add something to the plot - or rather, underlines something. We've been told (quite a bit) that the Night's Watch is the dregs of society - bastards, thieves, murderers, rapists. But this scene emphasizes how close to returning to that life many of them are. AND, let's not forget, they're all that stands between the rest of the world and a bunch of wildlings, wights, White Walkers and god knows what else.

It's not a pleasant scene, but it works within context. It also basically sets skull-drinker (his name escapes me) up as the new Craster - he's bullying everyone around him and handing babies out for sacrifice.

Theon wasn't the best example there, I was trying to think of scenes off the top of my head. I see your point, but you can achieve all of the above without another over the top rape scene. There was already a scene back at the Crows were one of them said "Bet those poor girls never thought they'd miss their daddy". We already know they are being abused horribly. Did they need to say

rape 'em til there dead

or have someone raping a girl literally right behind him. There was enough screams in the background and the absolutely defeated looks and bruises on some of the women got across the point of him being an absolute evil **** well enough.

username123

snausages wrote: »

I think a lot of people have missed my main point, which is that the frequency of scenes of women being raped far outweighs some of the other scenes you've just mentioned. I don't think so many of them is needed. There hasn't been a crucifixion scene or a scene with a man having his genitals mutilated half as frequently as there have been scenes of women being raped violently.

Erm.... didnt Dany crucify over 100 people last night? And talk about the 163 children crucified on the way to Meereen? We havent seen 163 rapes have we?

I actually liked the Crasters scene, I thought the casual rape added a lot to it, particularly as you could see the one fat guy who had killed Lord Commander Mormont was on the edge of desperation, he was kissing a girls back and trying to forget the horrible situation he was in. For those guys in Crasters keep its certain death even if the Nights Watch dont come for them, because they wont be able to grow anything, trade, etc... theyve no way of surviving once theyve eaten whats stored, and because they are Nights Watch deserters, theres nowhere to run - further North is going to be death by wildings/white walkers/cold/hunger, and they cant go south because they wont get past the Wall and even if they do - theyll be executed for deserting if they are caught. So theyre dead men walking. Why not rape and rape and drink - theres little else they can do.

Potatoeman

snausages wrote: »

tbh, the first reasonable counter-argument I've read, for last night's scene at least. Although I disagree that they need to show that scene, I do admit to forgetting sometimes that lots of the Night's Watch are really just a shower of arseholes who deserve to be there rather than unfortunates like Jon Snow and Sam.

Most people that didnt read the books miss some pretty obvious characters that are related too.

December2012

Rape is a weapon of war. There is a lot of talk about it in the books. There is also beheading, castration, fire sacrifice, ordering soldiers to their death, genocide, famine, hunger, inequality, violence, slavery and constant examples of how war really affects people.

Khal Drogo says he will take the iron throne and rape the women of those who stand in his way.

He rapes his wife at times. Prostitutes get raped. They get beaten up, there is hella violence against them. There is peadophilia, there is male rape too, bed slaves, the whole lot.

The story is basically about war.

I don't think the mention or depiction of rape or violence is too much.

It's just how it is. And if it offends you or makes it uncomfortable for you to watch, then don't (it's ine of the reasons I don't watch Oz).

Naux

The books(and the tv show) are full of rape, incest, torture, murder, cruelty, brutality and carnage.

This thread reminds me of the whole "he killed the cat" phenomenon that we saw with Love Hate:P

What about the violence against wolves !!

Grimebox

Meh. It's a depiction of violence in a fantasy world. I can detach myself appropriately. Nothing can offend me after watching Irreversible.

DM addict

Naydy wrote: »

Theon wasn't the best example there, I was trying to think of scenes off the top of my head. I see your point, but you can achieve all of the above without another over the top rape scene. There was already a scene back at the Crows were one of them said "Bet those poor girls never thought they'd miss their daddy". We already know they are being abused horribly. Did they need to say

rape 'em til there dead

or have someone raping a girl literally right behind him. There was enough screams in the background and the absolutely defeated looks and bruises on some of the women got across the point of him being an absolute evil **** well enough.

They didn't need to, no. But HBO is not known for toning down the violence. And I understand why they did it. It is brutal, and the show could work without it. But I think it would be poorer for it.

I think one of the things that I enjoy about GoT is that the violence doesn't feel gratuitous. Now, Joffrey's whore-baiting - completely repulsive. But it makes sense, and it gives great insight into the character. And into why

QoT would rather kill him than let her granddaughter marry him.

I am not going to go through every OTT scene and explain why it's in there, although to be honest, I'm quite tempted. I agree that there is an incredible amount of violence, and a lot of sexual violence against women. But I believe it serves plot and character.

Soft Falling Rain

I don't really have a problem with what was shown in Crasters in the last episode. I know people are saying a lot of it could have gone unseen, but there's nothing subtle about what these guys are. They are absolutely the worst aspects of humanity and indeed, what happened last night reminded us of the worst aspects of the Nights Watch.

Many of these men are murderers and rapists. They are brutal and horrifically blunt in their actions. These guys simply couldn't give a bollox, that's why they raped women in plain sight of each other rather than drag them away to a room.

They aren't afraid of what they are, and neither is the show. They are scum of the highest order, and that's exactly what we were unapologetically shown.

Potatoeman

I'm offended they cut Strong Belwas from the TV show. His fight against the champion in the previous episode was far better in the book.

ceadaoin.

I wasn't offended at all by last nights episode. It's a fictional depiction of a place where life is pretty **** for everyone, especially women. I don't understand why rape is somehow worse than the beheadings, castrations, torture etc that are also frequently shown. I found Theons torture far more uncomfortable to watch. I wonder what the reaction would have been if that had happened to a female character?

eviltwin

It was the bit at the end with the baby that really freaked me out

jebidiah

I have to say that the scene in crasters was a low point for me. It was sick. Totally unnecessary and to be honest gruesome. I thought the guy making the speech was enough to get the point of whats going on there... To have that guy in the back ground litterally, violently raping a woman, was totally unnecessary. I've read the books, understand the "realities of the adopted time line" excuse that is being waved about, but I still think the shows producers went too far.

That scene in comparison to Jaime and Cersei. Jaime was trying to force Cersei to "make love" with him. (I still think what he did was rape, but not in his mind. He was desperately trying to be with the woman he loved. He wasn't thinking, "I'm going to rape Cersei" Regardless of his opinion of the situation it was still rape.) This scene was an atrocity to book readers and should have never existed. Im sure there have been similar scenes in other shows, where male characters have tried to force their lovers to have sex with them out of desperation or emotional strain.

It's awful inexcusable behaviour, but it does sadly happen in real life, and a case could be made for including it in TV and film for plot development.

Contrast that with the scene where the opening line is "rape them till their dead" which shows a woman being held down and raped for probably more than a minute in the background. It makes Jamie's scene seem tame. And I personally think there is no place for that kind of scene on TV.

Liam O

As I've said to the OP before, there are a load of sex scenes that are totally unnecessary and add nothing. Ironically it's not the ones he/she is complaining about that are these. It's the pointless ones with pointless characters that mean nothing to anything. The rape and general debauchery of men is hugely important to setting the tone of the world that is being depicted. The bi-episodic orgies in Kings Landing just so they can fill their HBO appointed quota for nudity, not so much.

Most of the violence in the series is fantastical "never happen now to any of us" violence. Crucifying children is horrific but you also know it's just not real. Men getting killed by melted gold or stuck through with swords is also just not real and pretty much never going to happen now in the real world.

Rape and gang rape could happen now to anyone, which is what makes it that much more real and takes you away from fantasy land and back to real horrible possibility. Particularly if you consider actual victims may have been watching the show - I hope they did have a trigger warning on any tv stations.
I think faith said it well in one of the episode threads
110% agree. That scene lifted me totally out of my 'tv watching trance' and plopped me back in the real world. I couldn't settle for the rest of the episode then.

I don't think calling it bleating, or saying "rape culture is just a feminist invention" is either insightful nor helpful when examining why we're so shocked by this, to say the least. Neither is the lazy "well sex is dirty".

Rosy Posy

pickarooney wrote: »

Personally, I just don't find the extended rape and torture scenes very interesting. I watch it for the plot and character development, the dialogue and the scenery; the gore is a bore.

This. When they cut whole interesting characters and plot lines from the original story in order to fill the time with gratuitious sex and violence it seems as if they're just appealing to the lowest common denominator.

username123

Rosy Posy wrote: »

This. When they cut whole interesting characters and plot lines from the original story in order to fill the time with gratuitious sex and violence it seems as if they're just appealing to the lowest common denominator.

In Crasters the plot was developing while the rape and torture was going on in the background.

Michael D Not Higgins

bluewolf wrote: »

Most of the violence in the series is fantastical "never happen now to any of us" violence. Crucifying children is horrific but you also know it's just not real. Men getting killed by melted gold or stuck through with swords is also just not real and pretty much never going to happen now in the real world.

Rape and gang rape could happen now to anyone, which is what makes it that much more real and takes you away from fantasy land and back to real horrible possibility.

But people get acid thrown in their face, as happened recently in England. People are also stabbed all the time. If you're going to contextualise the violence commited to men in GoT as not being real because of the circumstances, you have to do the same with the women.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

But people get acid thrown in their face, as happened recently in England. People are also stabbed all the time. If you're going to contextualise the violence commited to men in GoT as not being real because of the circumstances, you have to do the same with the women.

...what

Michael D Not Higgins

bluewolf wrote: »

...what

your argument is along the lines of "Men getting...stuck through with swords is also just not real"

The Triads in Dublin have been involved with attacks using machetes and swords. To quote the Herald:
"In the early-morning attack, two men were left seriously wounded, one of them with a near-severed leg.
The incident occurred just before 2am on October 26 and involved a gang of six men armed with weapons that included knives, a hammer and a machete or sword."
http://www.herald.ie/news/detectives-launch-huge-crackdown-on-triad-gangs-29196810.html

This kind of violence against men is real. We understand that it is contextualised within the bounds of the fictional world of Westeros and this is the culture and times they live in. The same is true of the rape and violence against women.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

your argument is along the lines of "Men getting...stuck through with swords is also just not real"

The Triads in Dublin have been involved with attacks using machetes and swords. To quote the Herald:
"In the early-morning attack, two men were left seriously wounded, one of them with a near-severed leg.
The incident occurred just before 2am on October 26 and involved a gang of six men armed with weapons that included knives, a hammer and a machete or sword."
http://www.herald.ie/news/detectives-launch-huge-crackdown-on-triad-gangs-29196810.html

This kind of violence against men is real. We understand that it is contextualised within the bounds of the fictional world of Westeros and this is the culture and times they live in. The same is true of the rape and violence against women.

If someone is in fear of getting attacked with a knife, has been attacked with a knife, or knows someone who has, and then reacts in shock at seeing it very explicitly shown on screen, that would also be understandable. I don't think anyone would call them bleating or playing the victim for it either.
For the most part, the violence shown on this show is not everyday violence in a modern setting.
Knowing that it's fiction intellectually is one thing, but being shocked at actually seeing it because it's realistic is another.
There is no male/female issue here as far as I'm concerned, any male rape victim may well have been disturbed by that scene as well. Or if they'd been as explicit about showing it happening to theon

drumswan

bluewolf wrote: »

There is no male/female issue here as far as I'm concerned

What are you talking about? Look at the title of the thread. No-one seems to have any issue with violence against men in the series either.

drumswan

drumswan wrote: »

What are you talking about? Look at the title of the thread. .

Um, I didn't write the thread title

Michael D Not Higgins

bluewolf wrote: »

Um, I didn't write the thread title

But that is the issue we are discussing. If, as you said, someone reacts with shock at seeing these issues they have personally dealt with, then I would suggest that GoT is not for them. As others have said, the networks displayed a warning, but in any case GoT is not for the light hearted.

Personally, I cannot deal with some of the disgusting things on the likes of Embarrassing Bodies or hospital programmes. I don't watch them.

Mr Freeze

Deleted User wrote: »

What about the violence against wolves !!

And horses!

snausages

I think if you look hard enough you'll quite likely find real world analogues for nearly every atrocity committed in the series, even if it's boiling to death by molten gold. But I think after a certain point it becomes a reductive argument and in any case it's impossible to apply that hyper-relativist level of sensitivity to every violent scene on the show. Even 'some' rape in GoT is fine, I think, because it is an aspect of the world that the characters live in and avoiding that isn't good for the fiction of that world either.

But I agree with the bit about rape not being a gendered crime, because that's absolutely true and valid.

Potatoeman

I think people are desensitised to violence more than sexual violence. The scene wasn't that long or overly graphic.

Michael D Not Higgins

I'm somewhat reminded of a program I saw once on the standards in art. They showed a timeline of examples from one artist's catalogue. Everyone agreed it was art at the beginning and pornography at the end but people had a different point in the timeline where the line was crossed to porn.

In much the same way, some people may think certain parts of GoT have gone over that proverbially line of decency.

username123

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I'm somewhat reminded of a program I saw once on the standards in art. They showed a timeline of examples from one artist's catalogue. Everyone agreed it was art at the beginning and pornography at the end but people had a different point in the timeline where the line was crossed to porn.

In much the same way, some people may think certain parts of GoT have gone over that proverbially line of decency.

Well, you cant apply objective standards to subjective appraisals.

Greyjoy

jebidiah wrote: »

I have to say that the scene in crasters was a low point for me. It was sick. Totally unnecessary and to be honest gruesome. I thought the guy making the speech was enough to get the point of whats going on there... To have that guy in the back ground litterally, violently raping a woman, was totally unnecessary. I've read the books, understand the "realities of the adopted time line" excuse that is being waved about, but I still think the shows producers went too far.

It came across to me as the writers using rape as a lazy shorthand to show that the deserters are despicable characters. The scene opens with Karl (their leader) drinking wine from Mormont's skull. You don't need to add anything else to convince the audience that these guys are scum. But it's as if the writers felt that somehow that might not have been enough to show the deserters in a bad light so they throw in some casual rape as well.

Sleepy

The drinking from the skull felt far more out of place to me than the rape did.

A bunch of criminals who've been deprived of female company while serving in what amounts to a penal colony raping the first women that are unfortunate enough to be vulnerable around them makes sense. Them going to the effort of removing and cleaning the skull of an enemy in order to drink ale from it seems less realistic...

snausages

I don't think anyone is questioning the scene's realism really. It's perhaps too realistic if anything else.

Gbear

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't think calling it bleating, or saying "rape culture is just a feminist invention" is either insightful nor helpful when examining why we're so shocked by this, to say the least. Neither is the lazy "well sex is dirty".

Being shocked by it is fine. You can be shocked by anything - it depends from person to person.

But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with showing those shocking scenes.

Grimebox

I watched the second half of the episode again to see what all the fuss is about. I then realised I did the exact same thing I did the first time, I turned down the volume when the baby was crying. That is all that bothered me about the episode. The Karl Tanner scenes was fairly normal for GoT.

mayordenis

Like where was all this faux outrage when Craster himself had a legion of daughters that he was banging?

Why is seeing it so much worse than it happening off screen but certainly the effects being seen quite clearly.

Out of sight, out of mind?

I cannot agree that this has somehow crossed a line, it's nonsense.

Standman

I was more annoyed by the over the top acting and dialogue from your man drinking out of the skull in that scene; "I'm a scary, scary bad man. Look at my big mean face.".

I get they don't have enough time to flesh out each character in such a vastly populated series, but some characters can come across as a bit too one dimensional a lot of the time.

Kunkka

The first ever episode of GoT had a guy riding his sister in secret and then pushing a boy out a window.

There have been babies murdered.

Women giving birth to shadow babies.

A woman being stabbed in the stomach while pregnant and the rest of her bridal party being massacred.

O sweet summer child, if you were expecting GoT to turn in to Glee you were very much mistaken

Sleepy

snausages wrote: »

I don't think anyone is questioning the scene's realism really. It's perhaps too realistic if anything else.

Is that not what's great about ASOIAF?! It's a fantasy series shown through the lens of brutal reality.

There's plenty of fantasy out there for those that want the really nasty stuff glossed over or blatantly ignored: Lord of the Rings, Eragon, Star Wars, The Riftwar Saga etc. This shows us the horrors of massive wars fought with blades, lances, maces and morningstars: that the nobility are often far from noble and how it's usually the innocent that suffer most.

None of the rape scenes in this series have been particularly graphic. It's hardly been the stuff of "I Spit On Your Grave" or the torture porn Saw movies. It simply doesn't shy away from showing a medieval world in an accurate light (and throwing in some magic to add to the drama).

What exactly is it that people are offended by? That women in the series are raped is no more implying that sexual violence is acceptable than the fact it has dragons is implying that they're real. That our society seems to consider the maiming and murder of characters less appalling than rape says there's something wrong about us imo. Are we eager to convince people who've been raped that they've suffered a fate worse than death for some reason?

snausages

There are definitely other scenes in the series I'd consider problematic, although birthing shadow-babies and incest-twins nearly killing Bran isn't among them. The very first episode had Kahl Drogo appearing to rape Daneryeas, which apparently doesn't even happen in the book, so I'm not sure if it was a directional snafu like Cersei and Jaime last week or that they wanted it to be rape.

snausages

Sleepy wrote: »

What exactly is it that people are offended by? That women in the series are raped is no more implying that sexual violence is acceptable than the fact it has dragons is implying that they're real. That our society seems to consider the maiming and murder of characters less appalling than rape says there's something wrong about us imo. Are we eager to convince people who've been raped that they've suffered a fate worse than death for some reason?

Most (not all) of the extreme scenes are sufficiently detached from our own reality for them to work on the level of fantasy, so I don't think that people being more offended by the extreme rape scenes than by the mutilations and crucifixions is evidence of our moral hypocrisy. I'd argue that Theon's castration was maybe overdone. Maybe.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the creator's of GoT are rape apologists. That'd be absurd.

I don't think it's fair to compare the series to torture porn to make the point that the rape scenes aren't 'that' graphic. Torture porn is probably one of the most base forms of 'art' out there.

Sleepy

I thought that scene was accurate enough tbh. It was an arranged marriage in a world where Danaerys became Drogo's property the second she married him and she submitted to his sexual desires even though they were possibly the last thing she wanted. Much as Sansa would have submitted to Tyrion had he insisted on consummating their marriage and those who society forced into arranged marriages in our own past would have done so.

The idea of marrying for love is relatively new to humanity and marital rape has only been criminalised in our own lifetime.

snausages

Yeah, but book

from hearing people who've read the books talk about it it seems like Dany and Drogo's relationship was founded on a basis of somewhat uneasy consent at first, then they fell properly in love. In the series we only seemed to get the second part of that. I'd have much rathered it be like the book, especially as Dany is older in the series while she's only 12 in the book

Standman

HBO promo for this series:



They must have spelled 'women' wrong! :pac:

pickarooney

Standman wrote: »

I was more annoyed by the over the top acting and dialogue from your man drinking out of the skull in that scene; "I'm a scary, scary bad man. Look at my big mean face.".

I get they don't have enough time to flesh out each character in such a vastly populated series, but some characters can come across as a bit too one dimensional a lot of the time.

Exactly. These are the kind of characters that nobody could give a **** about as they're obviously comic-book bad with no chance of redemption. The grey-area characters like the Hound, Arya and Jaime are far more interesting that this buffoon or the insipid goody two-shoes like Sansa and Ned. Joffrey was an exception because he regularly got a good beat down from his uncle or grandfather.

Sleepy

snausages wrote: »

Most (not all) of the extreme scenes are sufficiently detached from our own reality for them to work on the level of fantasy, so I don't think that people being more offended by the extreme rape scenes than by the mutilations and crucifixions is evidence of our moral hypocrisy. I'd argue that Theon's castration was maybe overdone. Maybe.

Why was it overdone? The sausage related humour the following week was a little cringe-worthy but it still made my wife giggle. I'd disagree that the rape scenes are "extreme" too btw. Were they filmed on the same level of extremity as many of the non-sexual violence, I can't see them being aired.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily moral hypocrisy, just that perhaps we're overly sensitive to scenes of scenes of violence against women. Much in the same way that were a male character to backhand Cersei in the same way that Tyrion back-handed Joffrey I couldn't see it being as celebrated.

Maybe it stems from historic partriarchal notions of women being fragile things that need a man's protection, maybe it's caused by some sections of feminism's urgency to paint women as victims at every opportunity but it really does seem to me that people are over-reacting to these scenes because it's women who are being treated horribly in them.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the creator's of GoT are rape apologists. That'd be absurd.

While not going that far, I think many are trying to argue that the creators shouldn't show rape on screen. The "why?" of their argument seems to have escaped most of them however.

Because it might traumatise someone who's been raped? The same argument has never been used against the RSA's car crash ads, nor have I seen it suggested that stabbings etc. shouldn't be shown for fear of upsetting the victims of knife crimes.

Because it's "not nice"? If we accept that argument we may as well cancel this, and many other shows.

I don't think it's fair to compare the series to torture porn to make the point that the rape scenes aren't 'that' graphic. Torture porn is probably one of the most base forms of 'art' out there.

It's not my cup of tea to be honest but I don't feel the need to put inverted commas around the word art when describing it... or at least no more than I would around soap operas, rom-coms, horror movies or other forms of fiction that wouldn't be to my taste either.

Naydy

Sleepy wrote: »

Much in the same way that were a male character to backhand Cersei in the same way that Tyrion back-handed Joffrey I couldn't see it being as celebrated.

Umm, Robert did this. And none of us "over-sensitive" types were bothered by that. I thought the scene of Robert hitting Cersei was well done and in character and actually added to the plot. I certainly wasn't thinking "poor fragile woman".

snausages

Sleepy wrote: »

While not going that far, I think many are trying to argue that the creators shouldn't show rape on screen. The "why?" of their argument seems to have escaped most of them however.

I don't think anyone has made that argument, not me anyway. I think the creators should be allowed to show and communicate rape on screen, but within certain limits. It's not as if this would hamper the creative vision of the show or harm the story it's trying to tell. The viewer knows that rape in Westeros is a real threat faced not just by women but also men (remember Theon in the forest?), so naturally there comes a point where it simply isn't necessary to keep reminding the audience watching.

The issue I have lies with narrative justification. As you ask 'why' do people hate the rape scenes, I ask 'why' are there so many and what is the purpose of them? TV doesn't need to be realistic, especially when it's a fantasy series. Even a series as great as The Wire and True Detective steps outside the limits of realism from time to time simply because it works better that way. The scene with that rapey asshole drinking out of the previous Night's Watch Commander's skull is corney but an effective communicant of why he's such an arse.

Suspension of disbelief is why comically absurd scenes such as that don't really bother the average TV viewer. But vicious rape scenes do. I'm not a rape victim so the scene didn't trigger any specific traumas for me like it might do for others, but I still find it disgusting. It's not why I watch Game of Thrones. I know this series has garnered a reputation over the past 4 years but even so I did not expect it to have scenes like this. I don't see why the fault should lie with me, the TV viewer, for finding this scene so offensive. I totally disagree as well that this scene is on par with stuff that has been shown before.

As for the RSA ads, well we have rape-awareness ads that are pretty vivid in their own way but with the intent of raising awareness, something which I don't think is at the forefront of the script-writer's mind when he/she wrote the Castor's Keep scene.

Potatoeman

Sleepy wrote: »

I thought that scene was accurate enough tbh. It was an arranged marriage in a world where Danaerys became Drogo's property the second she married him and she submitted to his sexual desires even though they were possibly the last thing she wanted. Much as Sansa would have submitted to Tyrion had he insisted on consummating their marriage and those who society forced into arranged marriages in our own past would have done so.

The idea of marrying for love is relatively new to humanity and marital rape has only been criminalised in our own lifetime.

The marriage would not be legitimate if it was not consumated either. Its also the reason the bedding tradition seems to exist in Westeros.